World Conference on International Telecommunications: What happened and what it means for the Internet

Share this:

Get More:

(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) - 19 December 2012 - After two weeks of intensive negotiations, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) adopted the revised International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), a controversial treaty, which has been viewed by many as an attempt by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and Member States to take over the Internet.

The conference has been hailed as a success by the ITU with 89 Member States signing the treaty. Meanwhile, others have pointed out that it failed to achieve consensus leading to 55 Member States, including the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and several other EU countries not signing the treaty.

So what happened in Dubai? Clearly, at the heart of the negotiations was the question whether the ITRs were going to cover the Internet and broader Internet policy issues. Despite repeated assurances of the ITU Secretary-General, Dr Hamadoun Toure, that the ITRs were not about the Internet or Internet Governance, it was abundantly clear that the 'I' word was on the minds of delegates as they set to discuss the Preamble to the ITRs and various other provisions about spam and security.

After over a week of stalemate, matters came to a halt when the Iranian delegate called for a vote on the inclusion of the 'right of access of Member States to access international telecommunications services' in the Preamble to the ITRs. The proposal came in as delegates were debating the inclusion human rights language in that same Preamble. The amendment was passed by a vote of 77 for, 33 against and 8 abstentions. For several western Member States this crossed a red line amid concerns over several other provisions and a controversial Internet Resolution contained in the 'package' proposed by WCIT Chair Mohamed Nasser Al Ghanim (UAE).

As the Chair highlighted several times, the 'package' was a compromise text, which was meant to achieve a 'delicate balance' between the various interests at stake. In particular, it introduced a reference to 'human rights obligations' in the Preamble to the ITRs, partly with a view to assuage concerns about the possible negative implications for freedom of expression and the right to privacy which may arise as a result of the provisions on security and spam. Another clause was also added making clear that the ITRs did not address the content-related aspects of international telecommunications services.

At the same time, these elements failed to address the basic objection of several Member States led by the US that spam brought in content-related issues, which was inconsistent with the new clause excluding content from the ambit of the ITRs. Moreover, there were continuing concerns over the vague language used in Article 5A in relation to 'network security', which was seen by many as legitimizing censorship and sweeping surveillance practices by Member States.
Finally, the 'Internet Resolution' proved to be a particularly sticking point for non-signatory countries, not least because of the way in which it was adopted. The resolution 'to foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet' had been included as part of a deal whereby the word 'Internet' would be kept out of the treaty text and pushed back in a Resolution. On 13 December 2013, the Chair baffled EU delegates and others by passing the Resolution after 'taking the temperature of the room' - without a vote - just minutes before the close of a plenary session in the wee hours of the morning.

While the Resolution is non-binding, it overly emphasised the role of States in Internet-policy making at the expense of the multi-stakeholder model, which has been the hallmark of Internet Governance. It also unduly broadened the mandate of the ITU beyond its traditional technical remit to include Internet public policy matters despite assurances of the ITU Secretary-General to the contrary.
Continue reading.

Key reports and information

There are far too many countries where news and content providers constantly face a very special and formidable form of censorship, one exercised in the name of religion or even God. And with increasing frequency, this desire to thwart freedom of information invokes the hard-to-define and very subjective concept of the "feelings of believers."

From August 28 to October 15, 2014, PEN American Center carried out an international survey of writers1 , to investigate how government surveillance influences their thinking, research, and writing, as well as their views of government surveillance by the U.S. and its impact around the world.

This report is a baseline, a rst step for encouraging further advocacy eorts on the issue. We urge both the government and the civil society to take the challenge of addressing privacy rights as a serious and urgent priority towards ensuring the civil liberties of the citizens.

Internet intermediaries – such as internet service providers, search engines and social media platforms – play a crucial role in enabling people around the world to communicate with each other. Because of their technical capabilities, internet intermediaries are under increasing pressure from governments and interest groups to police online content.

Global press freedom has fallen to its lowest level in over a decade, according to the latest edition of Freedom House's press freedom survey. The decline was driven in part by major regression in several Middle Eastern states, including Egypt, Libya, and Jordan; marked setbacks in Turkey, Ukraine, and a number of countries in East Africa; and deterioration in the relatively open media environment of the United States.

International human rights law provides a clear and universal framework for the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, including in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance, the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data. Practices in many States have, however, revealed a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight, all of which have contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful interference in the right to privacy.

Which companies stand with their users, embracing transparency around government data requests? Which companies have resisted improper government demands by fighting for user privacy in the courts and on Capitol Hill? In short, which companies have your back?

World Report 2014 is Human Rights Watch’s 24th annual review of human rights practices around the globe. It summarizes key human rights issues in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide, drawing on events through November 2013

A new bill provides for the immediate blocking of websites with content regarded by the prosecutor’s office as extremist. Inciting hatred or terrorist acts are already grounds for blocking. Now, urging people to participate in unauthorized protests would also be viewed as "extremist."

This publication provides an overview of the main international standards relevant to the protection of the right to freedom of expression in relation to Information Communication Technologies. It identifies international and regional standards for the protection of key areas of concern, including content regulation, the rights of citizen journalists and bloggers, and access to information

Take Action!

From a journalist following in the footsteps of her idols at Harvard, to an activist fighting for a world where children are free to express themselves, the Media Institute of Southern Africa introduces you to 9 women who are "making it happen."

IFEX publishes free expression news and reports from around the globe. Some member content has been edited by IFEX. Permission is granted for material on this website to be reproduced or republished in whole or in part provided the source member and/or IFEX is cited with a link to the original item.